"...However, if someone is sexual attracted to someone, isn't that natural?"
No, not if the sexual attraction is directed to a entity that is incompatible, like male x male or female x female. In other words homosexuality. It all comes down to the meaning of nature and something is only natural if it conforms with its intended purpose, functionality and design. Sexuality and sex were designed and intended for MALES and FEMALES by nature, that is why procreation lies with the union of these two opposites.
"When a guy sees a girl who is hot, you know you are attracted to her. It is the same with gays. If they see a hot guy (or girl), they are attracted to them. How is that not natural?"
Same as above. NATURE has already created, set and programmed what is natural concerning sexual behaviour and conduct: It's called HETEROSEXUALITY. A man being attracted to a woman is natural because THAT'S HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. That is CORRECT because that is what nature INTENDED. Homosexuality is a deviancy from the intentions and purposes of nature so it is therefore unnatural.
"And what about women who can't procreate? Doesn't that mean they are not serving their purpose for bearing children? The purpose of sex isn't sex, it is to create children Does that mean those people are women or wrong?"
Not at all. The infertile female or male cannot biologically reproduce due to 'faulty equipment' (to illustrate the point figuratively). A celibate individual simply chooses to abstain from procreation, after all, just because you have the tools doesn't mean you need to use them and nature makes no demands as to their compulsory usage; that decision is left to the discrimination of the individual. But to illustrate the difference between the above situations and homosexuality, is to point out that a homosexual has full functionality of his 'tools', chooses to use them and uses them INCORRECTLY. There's the difference.
"Sex is sex, intercourse, going into another human being. Sex was NEVER defined only as male on female until humanity came along and said it was."
Yes, humanity RIGHTLY defined sexual intercourse as an act between a male and a female because they had the good sense to see that the principles governing this biological process were already established and innately present within their bodily form and mindset. All humanity had to do was openly declare it because everything about the process was ALREADY DECIDED FOR THEM.
The only thing people can do is uphold the sexual rules or abandon them; they certainly had no say their conception.
So, I see you didn't answer about the animals you are asexual and about hermaphrodites? It is all biology. And what do you mean rightly defined? How do you know what is rightly defined? Did you know that in the 1800's a right definition for black people would be something like: inferior beings who are created for slavery. Is that right? And how do you know what nature intended? I didn't know that you could talk to it.
You talk about how gays chooses to be gay, yet you are making an excuse for people who CHOOSE to have sex with protection? Not people who never have sex, but people who have sex knowing that their job is to lay their sperm in a woman's eggs, yet they make sure sex is for fun and not for children.THEY are choosing to have sex without the chance of children, thus whoever has protected sex are unnatural.
Log in to comment